Animal Companion beats PC in Initiative....now what?


Rules Questions

251 to 296 of 296 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

JohnF wrote:

RAW is silent on who plays non-character actors (monsters/companions), etc.

Cool, so next time the party faces a dragon in your campaign, demand that the DM let you play the dragon![/sarcasm]

But let's do the math here...

Each player plays ONE PC (singular) and nothing else. By RAW they do not play multiple characters. That also is a house rule. Regardless that doesn't let them play a monster. So who else is around that is in charge of the world other than the PCs? Yep, the GM. And should that one PC of a given player die, then they currently don't have anything to play.. perhaps they can play a cohort, or allied NPC...

The DM, indeed, plays all the other characters.

Players don't play monsters, except as a house rule.. when the monster is their PC. And PCs advance by experience, and when experience is divided the poor animal companion is not given any!

Thus the DM, also, plays all the monsters. He plays all the creatures that are not the PCs, and the animal companion (sleek that he might be) is not a PC.

-James


BigNorseWolf wrote:
James Maissen wrote:
How many of these are you pulling back, and back until you go with exactly the situation that you described by having the DM move the animal companion. That is the DM having the animal companion react to the orders and then running the animal companion as following them. Also you have the DM saying what Fluffy's reactions are, right? Isn't that what the person playing fluffy gets to decide?

The critter has every reason to go around and flank, because that's what many of them naturally do.

And now there's a flank trick, which every combat critter will have, so the point is moot: fluffy doesn't flunk flank.

Fluffy wasn't ordered to flank, merely attack.

For some it makes sense that Fluffy moves in a direct path to attack, while for you that Fluffy moves around to flank.

So the question is given the choice between a square flanking and a square not-flanking.. fluffy may or may not elect to flank.

Everything being equal fluffy, even though not as great as Lassie, likely flanks. But it may not be equal if fluffy's mind, and that's the DM's call, not the druids or the player of the barbarian, etc.

Unlike Lassie, Fluffy cannot communicate well with those it's traveling. And Fluffy is evidently prone to stare in random directions during combat for no reason. Very strange creature Fluffy is.

-James

Grand Lodge

Yep. You are the rightiest of totally right people!

Seriously, why does the idea of the subject being purposefully vague seem incomprehensible to some?


Ansel Krulwich wrote:
Practically speaking, the companion ends up delaying until the druid issues a command

Why would Fluffy delay?

Assuming Fluffy isn't following any orders (guard, defend, heel, etc), and the party is being attacked, why can't Fluffy fight back?

Fluffy is not an inanimate object or puppet of the druid's but rather a companion and individual creature.

And it's not awkward to have different combatants go on different initiatives, D&D has done that for quite a while now. We did it (as a variant) in 1st edition.

Now you can have house rules that ignore this. You can do a group initiative for the bad guys and for the good guys, or break it up partially. But RAW, every one goes by their own initiative and ties get broken.

-James
PS: (That hurt! You're going to be one heck of a grandmother some day!!)


james maissen wrote:


Fluffy wasn't ordered to flank, merely attack.

And THAT is a perfect example of the persnickety, annoying, and outright petty literal genie shenanigans that leads to the hue and cry of "Get your hands off my mummy flanking snake"

You are getting in the way of the player telling his character what to do. The player wants to have his druid tell fluffy to move here and attack. He has, in his head, a plan for what he wants to do and you're getting in the way of something he is perfectly allowed to do within the rules...why? What are you trying to gain by micromanaging every square the critter moves into (which is about the only decision left up to the dm now) except annoying the player?

Quote:
For some it makes sense that Fluffy moves in a direct path to attack, while for you that Fluffy moves around to flank.

Yes, because I know animals aren't stupid.

Quote:
Everything being equal fluffy, even though not as great as Lassie, likely flanks. But it may not be equal if fluffy's mind, and that's the DM's call, not the druids or the player of the barbarian, etc.

That's you telling the player what Fluffy's personality is: risk averse or adventurous. Since you don't decide their feats, species, stat boosts, tricks, HD advancement, or equipment I don't see why you feel free to decide its personality.

Quote:
Unlike Lassie, Fluffy cannot communicate well with those it's traveling.

Have you ever owned a dog? You can easily tell the difference between "hey, i want to go out" "hey, there's a person at the door" and " IMGONNA RIP YOU APART!"


Ansel Krulwich wrote:
Do you think my player doesn't move the mini directly towards the monster?

I'd hope that he would make the decision based on how he would think that Fluffy would elect to 'attack' the target he's been assigned to attack. If that's move directly towards, sure. Meanwhile, if it's not.. then he'd move around to attack from flanking, etc.

And if the player seemed burdened by this doing me the favor of running a creature that the DM should be running, then I would relieve them of it.

Now let's try a scenario for you and see how you'd handle it:

You are a player and your (sole) character cannot see or hear a combat. For example you are on the outside of a Private Sanctum spell. Your party was entering when a Black Tentacles dropped down, mostly within the Sanctum but extending outside.

Do you want to know, as a player, what's going on inside the Sanctum? Or would you prefer not to know? Most importantly, why?

-James


BigNorseWolf wrote:
You are getting in the way of the player telling his character what to do. The player wants to have his druid tell fluffy to move here and attack.

Actually the rules are getting in his way. The player can have his druid order fluffy to attack a specific foe, but not from a specific square with the attack command.

And after the druid gives the order, it is the animal that decides how it attacks the target. Like you said, animals aren't stupid.

They won't delay while more and more foes get to attack them, unless they are following some order because they trust their druid over their own instincts.

But neither will they know to not pick the flanking square because then the rogue won't get a flank, or not charge to attack because that will block the charge lane for the barbarian who's decided to also attack that creature as opposed to another.

They don't get to coordinate with the party with whom they can't communicate. They get to still be animals fighting on the side of the party.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
What are you trying to gain by micromanaging every square the critter moves into

Well, for one thing in this hypothetical case I'm helping you understand the difference between the player having his character give an order and the player being able to carry out that order that his character is not carrying out.

And for another, I'm doing my job as the DM. If it is too much I can ask someone else to help, but if it's not.. then I let the players focus on their PC.

The druid player doesn't confuse him ordering fluffy to attack with fluffy attacking. Thus he gives the order, and then sees Fluffy attack.. but perhaps not in the exact manner that he intends, from the exact square, during his turn, etc. This helps the player not to forget that fluffy is not a mindless extension of his PC's will, but rather a living, breathing, dangerous animal that his PC has trained to fight with him.

If the player decides his druid wants a better degree of communication with Fluffy, then he actually invests in it. And those investments actually have returns.

-James


james maissen wrote:


Do you want to know, as a player, what's going on inside the Sanctum? Or would you prefer not to know? Most importantly, why?

-James

I want to know because

1) i can separate in character from out of character knowledge. Being left out of the fight is bad enough, not even getting to watch= i'm gonna go surf the net.

2) I may have an effect that the dm doesn't remember about that lets me know whats going on anyway (status, shield other, and the message spell the party SHOULD be spamming when they're separate)

3) If I do end up at the scene it would take a while to catch me up to speed. It saves time.


James Maissen wrote:
Actually the rules are getting in his way. The player can have his druid order fluffy to attack a specific foe, but not from a specific square with the attack command.

Every combat critter will now have the flank command. This argument is moot. Try again.

Quote:
They won't delay while more and more foes get to attack them, unless they are following some order because they trust their druid over their own instincts.

If the critter doesn't delay then its acting on its own. Demanding that the critter act on its own while simultaneously demanding slavish obedience to the exact words of the handle animal trick without any concerns for the animals instincts is a direct contradiction: a contradiction i can find no other reason for than to keep the druid from actually directing their animal companion as they're supposed to be.

Quote:
But neither will they know to not pick the flanking square because then the rogue won't get a flank, or not charge to attack because that will block the charge lane for the barbarian who's decided to also attack that creature as opposed to another.

Damn that druids player for trying to be a team player and let others do their thing!

Quote:
Well, for one thing in this hypothetical case I'm helping you understand the difference between the player having his character give an order and the player being able to carry out that order that his character is not carrying out.

Circular, and works against you. The player being able to force the animal to carry out the order via a guaranteed handle animal roll puts the animal under the players control.

Quote:
And for another, I'm doing my job as the DM. If it is too much I can ask someone else to help, but if it's not.. then I let the players focus on their PC.

Circular, again.

Quote:
The druid player doesn't confuse him ordering fluffy to attack with fluffy attacking. Thus he gives the order, and then sees Fluffy attack.. but perhaps not in the exact manner that he intends, from the exact square, during his turn, etc. This helps the player not to forget that fluffy is not a mindless extension of his PC's will, but rather a living, breathing, dangerous animal that his PC has trained to fight with him.

That you treat like a computer program the second you can pull literal genie.

Quote:
If the player decides his druid wants a better degree of communication with Fluffy, then he actually invests in it. And those investments actually have returns.

+11 handle animal,a 3 int and the right selection of tricks is pretty much, mechanically, player auto control over the critter. That should lead to a degree of communication between the two that is neigh inseparable from being one brain. The DM should run the neigh part and stay out of the rest.

Fun is more important than you marking your territory.


james maissen wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
James Maissen wrote:
How many of these are you pulling back, and back until you go with exactly the situation that you described by having the DM move the animal companion. That is the DM having the animal companion react to the orders and then running the animal companion as following them. Also you have the DM saying what Fluffy's reactions are, right? Isn't that what the person playing fluffy gets to decide?

The critter has every reason to go around and flank, because that's what many of them naturally do.

And now there's a flank trick, which every combat critter will have, so the point is moot: fluffy doesn't flunk flank.

Fluffy wasn't ordered to flank, merely attack.

If the druid commanded "attack" but actually meant "flank" and Fluffy knows the flank trick, then let the druid retcon it so they gave the "flank" command.

Quote:
So the question is given the choice between a square flanking and a square not-flanking.. fluffy may or may not elect to flank.

Fluffy will do as he is ordered to and as the Handle Animal check dictates, be it attack or flank.

james maissen wrote:
And Fluffy is evidently prone to stare in random directions during combat for no reason. Very strange creature Fluffy is.

In your opinion, I suppose.

Grand Lodge

This chess match between Player and DM to control the actions of the AC every single turn, sounds exhausting.

I can imagine myself now, on the sidelines, another player, watching this Player and DM battle for the actions of the AC, and just wanting it to end.

Hell, I might even ask the DM to play the AC, just to get some playtime.

Otherwise, I might just ask them to nab me when it was done, and go look at porn, or something.

Sczarni

Man, I saw this thread several pages ago and considered posting, but I thought that all that could be said, had been said. I'm relatively new to the forums... so I guess not.

To throw in my own, redundant, two cents, I think ACs should act on the players initiative. If it is getting out of control, time-wise, the GM has the right to take over control of the AC. The only time an AC is like a character, is when they've been awakened...and if that complicates things they become an NPC, played by the GM.

Btw, BBT, yeah sure, or something! ;) ha!


james maissen wrote:
Ansel Krulwich wrote:
Practically speaking, the companion ends up delaying until the druid issues a command
Why would Fluffy delay?

Depends on the situation. It's too easy if the druid and companion were next to each other like usual... So let's put me way out of my comfort zone and come up with something more extreme...

Druid and animal companion are separate by some arbitrarily long distance that is within line of sight and earshot. Fluffy gets ambushed by three ogres. Everyone rolls initiative, Fluffy's turn comes up. I look to the player and ask, "What would Fluffy do?"

james maissen wrote:
Assuming Fluffy isn't following any orders (guard, defend, heel, etc), and the party is being attacked, why can't Fluffy fight back?

He can. I wouldn't argue against that or claim otherwise.

james maissen wrote:
Fluffy is not an inanimate object or puppet of the druid's but rather a companion and individual creature.

I'm right there with ya, bud.

james maissen wrote:
And it's not awkward to have different combatants go on different initiatives, D&D has done that for quite a while now. We did it (as a variant) in 1st edition.

That's how I run it in my Council of Thieves game.

james maissen wrote:
Now you can have house rules that ignore this. You can do a group initiative for the bad guys and for the good guys, or break it up partially. But RAW, every one goes by their own initiative and ties get broken.

I know the rules of the game.

james maissen wrote:
PS: (That hurt! You're going to be one heck of a grandmother some day!!)

The worst kind of grandmother, I suspect.


Lamontia wrote:

Man, I saw this thread several pages ago and considered posting, but I thought that all that could be said, had been said. I'm relatively new to the forums... so I guess not.

To throw in my own, redundant, two cents, I think ACs should act on the players initiative. If it is getting out of control, time-wise, the GM has the right to take over control of the AC. The only time an AC is like a character, is when they've been awakened...and if that complicates things they become an NPC, played by the GM.

Btw, BBT, yeah sure, or something! ;) ha!

thats what I was going to say, lets say that AC is not controlled by the gm, but then it gets awakened I would have to say that its NOW a NPC so it would be under GMs control. As a gm I would let the player still run it most of the time, I have alot to do already. I would have to say that james is very right that now this AC is a NPC and should be under GM control unless GM allows PC to run it. Lamontia that was a good statement.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber
james maissen wrote:
JohnF wrote:

RAW is silent on who plays non-character actors (monsters/companions), etc.

Cool, so next time the party faces a dragon in your campaign, demand that the DM let you play the dragon![/sarcasm]

But let's do the math here...

Each player plays ONE PC (singular) and nothing else. By RAW they do not play multiple characters.

Perhaps your time would be better spent learning the rules, rather than posting sarcastic but sadly misinformed comments on the forums.

You have, several times, been directed to one of the Paizo rulebooks; the Game Mastery Guide. If you were to look at page 66 of that book, you would find the following text:

Game Mastery Guide wrote:

There’s no rule to prevent players from running multiple characters. [...]

There’s nothing to say that a player can’t play two totally independent PCs at once.

Those are statements taken straight from one of Paizo's Pathfinder Roleplaying Game rulebooks that directly contradict your claims.


james maissen wrote:
Ansel Krulwich wrote:
Do you think my player doesn't move the mini directly towards the monster?
I'd hope that he would make the decision based on how he would think that Fluffy would elect to 'attack' the target he's been assigned to attack.

He does. My real player, a falconer ranger, does all that and even rolls the proper Fly checks to hover or make tight turns.

Handling the pet's the easy part. Remembering all the penalties and bonuses that apply to archery, that's the burden.

james maissen wrote:

Now let's try a scenario for you and see how you'd handle it:

You are a player and your (sole) character

Ansel is a wizard who took the Arcane Bond feature so that's a given.

james maissen wrote:

cannot see or hear a combat. For example you are on the outside of a Private Sanctum spell. Your party was entering when a Black Tentacles dropped down, mostly within the Sanctum but extending outside.

Do you want to know, as a player, what's going on inside the Sanctum? Or would you prefer not to know? Most importantly, why?

Sure, I'd want to know. Why? So I could think of and deliver an off-color tentacle joke right on cue after I cross over into the Sanctum and stumble into the area of the Black Tentacles.

We'd all laugh and laugh. Then I'd swift action Shift out of the hentai zone and wait for my next turn.


james maissen wrote:


Fluffy wasn't ordered to flank, merely attack.

For some it makes sense that Fluffy moves in a direct path to attack, while for you that Fluffy moves around to flank.

So the question is given the choice between a square flanking and a square not-flanking.. fluffy may or may not elect to flank.

Everything being equal fluffy, even though not as great as Lassie, likely flanks. But it may not be equal if fluffy's mind, and that's the DM's call, not the druids or the player of the barbarian, etc.

Unlike Lassie, Fluffy cannot communicate well with those it's traveling. And Fluffy is evidently prone to stare in random directions during combat for no reason. Very strange creature Fluffy is.

-James

I thought I should point out that unless the animal in question is by nature a pack animal, it will not think to flank an opponent. Nor will it naturally pick a fight with most beasts just for fun. Combat is dangerous, and in it one can easily get wounded, get sick, and not be able to hunt and thus die.

Pack animals however think in terms of "I have help, and must help my pack", therefore they will flank. Even wolves don't necessarily do this, only the brighter ones will. Lionesses will do so, but male lions probably won't unless they are brothers and are hunting in tandem. None pick fights they don't think they can win easily, as getting hurt is a Bad Thing, no antibiotic to speed the healing process.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


Have you ever owned a dog? You can easily tell the difference between "hey, i want to go out" "hey, there's a person at the door" and " IM GONNA RIP YOU APART!"

I should point out that in my psychology career, I happen to know that dogs are literally bred to be much more responsive to human facial expressions/moods than wolves or any other creature on the planet. That's how you can tell what mood THEY are in, as well. Can't do that so well with housecats, for example.

Grand Lodge

Animal Companions are not the same animals in the Bestiary.

They have different stats, different rules, and are unique.

Note, the "Link" ability, provides more than what breeding responsiveness to emotions does.

This more than a well trained dog.

No matter what animal is chosen.


that link ability isn't defined well, to be perfectly frank. I can never tell if it would do what the player wants it to, or even if really it matters to game balance in the long run. I just write what I know, and am forced to guess the rest.

Grand Lodge

This a magically acquired creature, through a deep mystical relationship with nature.

This creature, is unlike others of it's kind, and bound to it's master with complete devotion(noted in the rules) and can be smarter than any of it's kind.

It is difficult to compare to real world animals.


call it what you will, it's poorly defined as to what you can accomplish with it


blackbloodtroll wrote:

This a magically acquired creature, through a deep mystical relationship with nature.

This creature, is unlike others of it's kind, and bound to it's master with complete devotion(noted in the rules) and can be smarter than any of it's kind.

It is difficult to compare to real world animals.

Direct comparisons are hard, but its pretty obvious that animal companions are > than their rl counterparts. So the idea that an animal companion can't do X seems pretty silly when the real ones do it all the time.


real animals only do such things occasionally, and that's if they are of the right species, had the proper upbringing (taught) etc. Even so, there's a limit to how well one can overcome instinct. Otherwise, you wouldn't have stories of zookeepers who get mauled by lions or tigers all of a sudden after being cared for years by those same people.

Grand Lodge

You know, Pathfinder Unicorns don't function like real world Unicorns.


Unicorns aren't natural animals in any way.

Grand Lodge

Neither are animal companions.

They share similarities, but are still quite different.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Neither are animal companions.

They share similarities, but are still quite different.

Right, but if someone says that a unicorn can't walk up stairs when you know a horse can you know they have a baseless argument.

Grand Lodge

The point is, that they differ, and that needs to remembered when making rules adjudications on what is possible/logical for the Companion to accomplish.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Neither are animal companions.

They share similarities, but are still quite different.

Not really. Only the specified changes render them different in any way from their natural selves. And until their Intelligence increases, there's a limit to their processing power.

Grand Lodge

They have different abilities, different sizes, and different capabilities.

They differ from their Bestiary counterparts, which are used to represent their real world counterparts.

Liberty's Edge

james maissen wrote:
DigitalMage wrote:
The point is, there is no clear category for "characters controlled and portrayed by a player but not that player's Player Character" unlike in games such as FATE where you have Companions and Minions..
And here's my question to you: who says that there is such a situation in this game?

And who says that there isn't? If there is no rule either way, it is ambiguous - which is the what many of us are saying about the issue of who controls the animal companion - it is vague in the core rulebook and thus there is no right or wrong way.

james maissen wrote:
Other games might routinely demand that a player play more than his/her PC, but D&D does not. The other games have such a category, but D&D does not.

If we agree with your definition of PC, that they earn XP, have class levels etc, then an animal companion is not a Player Character. So continuing with that definition, a player could run their PC's animal companion as well as their PC and still only be running one PC (their animal companion being something other than a PC).

james maissen wrote:
Now I know that you are likely used to playing the animal companion as a second PC of yours.

I think of it as another character I portray, though not as a second PC, because as I stated previously the term PC has more connotations than just "a character the player portrays" - it has implied in it that it is one of the story's protagonists, earns XP, etc.

james maissen wrote:
Possibly you are also used to having the animal companion's turn in initiative shared by your PC.

I am used to that yes, but only because I have only played a Druid in PFS and pretty much every PFS GM I have had has asked me to run it on the same initiative. I do however recognise that is a change from RAW though - I implied as much in the 9th post of this thread.

james maissen wrote:
I posit to you, that the same is true for your role playing your animal companion. It has been the house rule for so many, that this is confused with RAW.

I will happily admit that if you can show me the rule that says GMs should run animal companions. Seriously, I could have missed such a rule as I haven't read the PF core rule book cover to cover.

james maissen wrote:
There is no presupposition that the player is playing more than a single character. The text of the core rule book supports this. It also goes against the companion being considered a player character in their own right.

Hold on, this is where I feel your reasoning falls down. You are using two definitions of PC to argue your case (definitions I previously noted as potentially being contradictory).

Let us assume that you are correct in that the RAW assumes a player will only play one PC; by your definition of a PC (requiring to again XP etc) you showed that an animal companion was not a PC. Therefore if a player were to play his animal companion that would not go against any assumption that a player only has one PC.

You can't go and then use the much broader definition of PC in the core rulebook of "characters portrayed by the players" (PF p12) to then argue that if a player were to portray his animal companion that would make it a PC and that goes against the assumption of 1 PC per player.

Either an animal companion is a PC, in which case by definition it should be controlled by the player, or it is not a PC in which case it does not contradict any supposed assumption of a player only playing 1 PC. So which is it? I would go for the latter myself.

james maissen wrote:
Now I'm not saying whether or not having the druid's player also run the animal companion would be a good house rule for any specific group (PFS, the 6 kids at the local gaming store, etc). But I am saying that this is a house rule. I can get into more of this once everyone is up to speed on the animal companion not being a Player Character (fairly basic as you admit) and that it is a creature with its own initiative score.

I continue to wait in anticipation...

james maissen wrote:


PS: In 3.5 during a surprise round, only those that were not surprised would roll initiative in the surprise round. After the surprise round the rest of the combatants would roll for initiative. This can lead to fun situations where an unsurprised wizard casts cat's grace on a surprised PC to help their initiative in round 1. Pathfinder removed this and has everyone roll initiative at the same time.

Interesting I hadn't really clocked any change in that area, so thanks for pointing that out. Was it meant to be relevant to the discussion of animal companions though?

Liberty's Edge

james maissen wrote:

Each player plays ONE PC (singular) and nothing else. By RAW they do not play multiple characters.

[...]
The DM, indeed, plays all the other characters.

So is the basis of your argument the following?

A player only gets to play one character by RAW.

All other characters are therefore played by the GM.

If so, could you provide (again if you already did so) the quotes (with page numbers) for the above assertions. Also could you clarify what you believe "character" means in the above two statements; i.e. is it a specific game term? Is it short for Player Character? Are all living creatures in the game "characters", as well as certain contructs? etc.

Basically, could I ask you to go to the effort of summarising the basis for your assertion that, by RAW, animal companions are played by the GM?


...wait, does that mean that Animal Companions do NOT share initiative with the PC that owns it?!


blackbloodtroll wrote:

They have different abilities, different sizes, and different capabilities.

They differ from their Bestiary counterparts, which are used to represent their real world counterparts.

They differ but the difference is always in the animal companions favor.


DigitalMage wrote:
james maissen wrote:

Each player plays ONE PC (singular) and nothing else. By RAW they do not play multiple characters.

[...]
The DM, indeed, plays all the other characters.

So is the basis of your argument the following?

A player only gets to play one character by RAW.

All other characters are therefore played by the GM.

If so, could you provide (again if you already did so) the quotes (with page numbers) for the above assertions. Also could you clarify what you believe "character" means in the above two statements; i.e. is it a specific game term? Is it short for Player Character? Are all living creatures in the game "characters", as well as certain contructs? etc.

Basically, could I ask you to go to the effort of summarising the basis for your assertion that, by RAW, animal companions are played by the GM?

I don't have much time, so go back to the post on page 4 where I quoted many times from the core rule book.

Then follow this logic:

1. The animal companion is not a PC. PCs have many rules and the animal companion does not follow these.

2. You believe that the animal companion is a character, but not a player character. Right?

3. The characters portrayed by the players are the player characters.

Now from logic this gives us that the animal companions would be characters that are not portrayed by the players.

This is a great game, and allows for customization. Your group can elect to have players portray the animal companions of the group, as well as cohorts, allied NPCs, summons, bought animals, and the list goes on.

Your group could elect to have the person to the left of the player of the druid be the one portraying his/her animal companion as an example.

This doesn't make it the core rule, nor does it mean that this must be the case (as you've witnessed ragenerdquit reactions demanding).

The core rules have things along the lines that you do not get to play PC with race of a drow or a dragon. Now the group can elect to allow this, or other non-standard races. Likewise the group can say that everyone plays a human.

These are decided by the group as what variants from the core that they will wish to have as their game rules. But that doesn't mean that a new player coming into the game has any right to say 'but I always play a drow! I'm entitled to choose the race of my PC!' etc.

Likewise the incoming player is not entitled from the rules to play more than one PC, etc.

The core rules do not have you playing more than one character. The DM can entrust you with running some of the creatures that he/she should be running, but it is not a right.

People on this animal companion threads have been confusing what has been given to them with what they are entitled to have.

-James


James- you're confusing your argument from the raw with the raw. They're NOT the same thing.

Liberty's Edge

james maissen wrote:

Then follow this logic:

1. The animal companion is not a PC. PCs have many rules and the animal companion does not follow these.

2. You believe that the animal companion is a character, but not a player character. Right?

3. The characters portrayed by the players are the [/i]the player characters[/i].

Now from logic this gives us that the animal companions would be characters that are not portrayed by the players.

I will reiterate what I said a few posts back here:

You are using two definitions of PC to argue your case (definitions I previously noted as potentially being contradictory here).

Step 1 of your logic relies on your definition of a PC as being more than just a character a player portrays, the character needs to earn XP, have class levels etc, to be considered a PC (I assume this is what you mean by "PCs have many rules"). Therefore by that definition yes, an animal companion is not a PC.

Step 2, I agree that an animal companion is a character in the story correct, and that if we use the definition of PC outlined in step 1 I agree it wouldn't be a PC.

Step 3, here is where your logic falls down. You now use the much broader definition of PC in the core rulebook of "characters portrayed by the players" (PF p12) to argue that any character played by a player is a PC, and therefore because Step 1 and 2 shows an animal companion to not be a PC, an animal companion cannot be portrayed by a player.

If you are consistent and use the definition of PC to be simply "characters portrayed by the players" as per PF p12 in all steps of your logic, then in steps 1 and 2 nothing would rule out an animal companion as being considered a PC and thus in step 3 your don't come to the conclusion that animal companions are not run by players.

Alternatively, if you are consistent and use the definition of PC to be "characters portrayed by the players who earn XP and have class levels" in all steps of your logic, then in steps 1 and 2 animal companions would be seen to not be considered PCs, but in Step 3 you still couldn't come to the conclusion that animal companions are not run by players (instead they would be "characters portrayed by the players who don't earn XP or have class levels").

Sorry, but I am still not convinced that the RAW says who should control animal companions either way, and the quotes from Animal Archive seem to indicate that the designers of the game don't feel such a rule exists either.

Silver Crusade

I realize I kind of started this, but isn't the quote from animal archive pretty conclusive. It specifically instructs players to ask their DM how its going to work. My problem with this is that homebrew was always like this, but this does nothing for PFS. Well, I guess you can just sit down at every table and ask the DM. I see that going over like a lead pigeon, though.

Liberty's Edge

David Bowles wrote:
I realize I kind of started this, but isn't the quote from animal archive pretty conclusive.

Yep! More convincing than anything else I have read :)

Quaternion wrote:
Animal Archive wrote:

Questions To Ask Your GM

3) Do I control my animal directly in combat the same way I control my PC, or is it treated as an NPC under the GM's control?


DigitalMage wrote:
You are using two definitions of PC to argue your case (definitions I previously noted as potentially being contradictory

They are only contradictory/inconsistent if you taken as given that the player portrays the animal companion.

This is because the combination of these core rules definitions is telling you that the animal companion is not, by the RAW, under the control of the player.

The DM can allow the player to control the animal companion, just as the DM can allow a PC to be a drow.

But as far as the rules as written go, the player characters are of the standard races and the animal companion is run by the DM.

The Animal Archive is, from all I can tell, simply addressing this just as the core rule book addresses DMs allowing PCs from non-standard or even advanced races.

Both of these leave you with the DM decides who controls the animal companion, meaning that the player is not entitled to run the animal companion.

That said, in a home campaign the DM could allow such (and then subsequently disallow such when it proves problematic) and in a setting like PFS they certainly can make their own house rule as to how it should be handled.

The problem is that of perception and default. "How dare you take control of MY animal companion away from me" is flawed on so many levels. At the very least it should be the indignant "How dare you not let me have direct control over my character's animal companion" which is at least one notch down on that ladder.

-James

Liberty's Edge

james maissen wrote:
They are only contradictory/inconsistent if you taken as given that the player portrays the animal companion.

You know, thinking about this, I guess I can start to see where you are coming from, and I guess you could have an argument for your case.

PF p12 wrote:
Player Character (Character, PC): These are the characters portrayed by the players.

I believe your argument relies on reading the above not as a definition of what constitutes a player character (as that would mean any character played by a player is a PC) but rather inferring that it is a statement/rule that means "all character played by players must be PCs".

If that interpretation is taken (and I guess it could be seen as a valid interpretation) then that leads on to the next part of your argument...

Defining a Player Character as a character that, as well as being played by a player (and not the GM), is created and run according to a specific set of rules, e.g. generation of ability scores, choice of Race and Class from a specific subset, beginning equipement based on class starting goal, gaining of XP and levelling up etc.

If this is your definition of what a PC is, it can be seen that an animal companion is not a PC. However, this definition is not exactly clear from the rulebook.

So, combining the inferred rule that "all character played by players must be PCs" and the interpretation of the definition of a PC as being "a character that, as well as being played by a player (and not the GM), is created and run according to a specific set of rules" then yep it would seem that animal companions shouldn't be run by players.

However, the above is based on inference and interpretation. If we take the literal reading of page 12 as being the definition of a PC (i.e. that it is a character played by a player) then that is the definition pure and simple - the definition does not then get additional clauses that the character has to earn XP etc. So with this in mind, you have an argument in the debate, but I wouldn't say it is the only argument or one that is necessarily even convincing.

But let's say we go with your definitions and interpretations. By stating that a in order to be a Player Character a character needs to have class levels, earn XP etc, you are implying that a character is made up of fluff (concept, name, background story etc) AND mechanics, Hit Points, Class Levels, XP, Ability Scores etc.

If that is the case, I believe an equally strong argument could be made that an animal companion, while having a distinct and separate personality from the PC's main personality, is mechanically part of the Player Character build - its Hit Dice, size and so forth are integrally tied to the class levels of the PC build. Therefore, an animal companion being part of the PC should be played by the player.

So even if we accept your interpretation of the text, we can still make an argument that animal companions should be played by players without contradicting your definitions (and with this argument we are actually making the claim that animal companions should not by default be run by GMs!)

In the end, I think that whilst there are arguments for GM controlling animal companions and arguments for players controlling animal companions there is no clear and definitive ruling on the subject. Therefore I believe it should be a discussion between GM and players right at character creation - and that seems to be what the designers had in mind too!


DigitalMage wrote:
However, the above is based on inference and interpretation. If we take the literal reading of page 12 as being the definition of a PC (i.e. that it is a character played by a player) then that is the definition pure and simple - the definition does not then get additional clauses that the character has to earn XP etc. So with this in mind, you have an argument in the debate, but I wouldn't say it is the only argument or one that is necessarily even convincing.

Since when did D&D localize and not refine their definitions?

The rules are simply not written that way. They tell you a story, but that gets further clarified as you progress through the rules. It's the chosen style for them and has been throughout this edition.

You have two ways to read the core rules. You can say, as you are maintaining, that the definition on page 12 cannot get additional clauses. You will then go on to say that the book is inconsistent and self-contradictory. But that is based upon your premise that the one short phrase is the full definition from which you can run in all directions.

Consider the following:

This is a set of rules for the game. Not legalistic, but rather teaching oriented.

The definition was never intended to be stand alone. Instead is paints the picture. When they say Player Characters, they mean it quite literally- these are the characters that the players portray. This is what page 12 tells the reader looking to learn the game.

And you are right that this is certainly not a full definition with all intricacies. But those are gained through the course of the huge tome that is the core rule book.

The rules later explain to you facets about characters and what it means for something to be one. It is presented from the point of view of the player choosing from options for their player character. Characters advance through EXP, they have classes, they are one of these races, etc. This is not an inconsistency with the initial definition, but rather expanding upon it.

The alternative is to have a page long definition that almost no one will read containing terms that won't be properly explained for many chapters! This might make for a better legalistic definition, but would make for quite a lousy way to explain the rules of the game. Since the later is the focus here, it is quite a reasonable style to choose.

As to 'what's intended', I'm very certain that discussions on what will be allowed is a great discussion that should occur at the start of each and every campaign.

For example 'can I play a drow?' could be a question a player would ask.. right? We can blame a series of books, but we live with the frequency of the question.

This is far different from the player demanding to play a drow, and even that is different from a player expecting to play a drow, and lastly a player demanding that the core rules say that he can choose to play a drow!

Rather, this playing a character of that non-standard race is something that the GM can elect to allow as an alteration of the rules. See around page 405 or so in the core rule book.

While I don't own the animal archive, I'm suspecting that the book is written similarly. It is likely coming from a player's perspective, while those passages in the core book are speaking to the GM.

Thus a gaming group could decide any of the following (non-exhaustive):

1. The GM runs everything but the PCs.
2. The player of the druid portrays the animal companion.
3. The GM assigns each of the non-PCs allied to the party with players.
4. Any of the above is decided by the GM at a given time.

For the core rules, however, the answer is #1. The GM can certainly allow for the others, but here you move into house rules and campaign decisions and away from the core rules.

-James


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Animal companions are most definitely natural. After all, they still possess the animal type and rangers and druids are all about their ties to the NATURAL world.

One might even go so far as to say that they are SUPER natural.

;P

Liberty's Edge

james maissen wrote:

Since when did D&D localize and not refine their definitions?

The rules are simply not written that way. They tell you a story, but that gets further clarified as you progress through the rules. It's the chosen style for them and has been throughout this edition.

And that is fine, but then once you have made that extra clarification on what a PC is, you can't then return to the much broader definition to say "well animal companions are not PCs and thus cannot be portrayed by players as that doesn't fit with the looser definition" - either use the broader definition or the narrower one, don't use whichever combination "proves" your interpretation of the rules.

james maissen wrote:
This is a set of rules for the game. Not legalistic, but rather teaching oriented.

Exactly, and yet you appear to be trying to treat it as legalistic text by piecing together bits of text that are not so much rules but explanatory text describing the normal case scenario, and trying to extrapolate black and white RAW rulings for all scenarios.

For example, many classes don't have extra companions such as familiar and animal companions, and so mainly it is correct to described how each player plays one character - but should that be interpreted as strict rule to enforce? I would say no.

james maissen wrote:

Thus a gaming group could decide any of the following (non-exhaustive):

1. The GM runs everything but the PCs.
2. The player of the druid portrays the animal companion.
3. The GM assigns each of the non-PCs allied to the party with players.
4. Any of the above is decided by the GM at a given time.

For the core rules, however, the answer is #1. The GM can certainly allow for the others, but here you move into house rules and campaign decisions and away from the core rules.

And here I say again that whilst you do have an argument that #1 is the default method, it is not clear cut.

As stated, it can equally be argued that an animal companion is part of a PC (as a PC is not just the fluff of name, personality and background, but also mechanics such as classes, levels, hit points etc) and so even if we agree that #1 is correct and "The GM runs everything but the PCs" that would mean the GM does not get to run the animal companion - as doing so would mean the GM as running a PC, albeit only in part.

My view is not that players always run animal companions, but that the RAW has no clear voice on it one way or the other - and I am yet to be convinced otherwise. Sorry!


DigitalMage wrote:
My view is not that players always run animal companions, but that the RAW has no clear voice on it one way or the other - and I am yet to be convinced otherwise. Sorry!

Furthermore, of the published texts that we have from Paizo:

1) In the GameMastery Guide, the game play example shows the player making all decisions regarding the animal companion, the GM doesn't call for Handle Animal checks that auto-succeed, the player makes all dice rolls for the animal companion, has the animal companion acting on the druid's initiative, and has the player interleaving move and standard actions between the druid and animal companion i.e., the most permissive and liberal interpretation of the rules as you could possibly imagine.
2) The Animal Archive describes two ways to run animal companions: GM controlled or player controlled.

So, in the case of an animal companion beating the PC in initiative and what happens next? The answer is whatever the GM and the player have both agreed upon is cool.

251 to 296 of 296 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Animal Companion beats PC in Initiative....now what? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.